It's genius really. You say you don't trust experts, and then when your own forecasts prove to be wrong, you blame those same experts for 'talking things down'.
Current Affairs EU In or Out
- Thread starter micknick
- Start date
- Status
It's genius really. You say you don't trust experts, and then when your own forecasts prove to be wrong, you blame those same experts for 'talking things down'.
Foot Long Hot Dog
Player Valuation: A packet of pork scratchings
The entire thing is becoming a complete farce. The blame game has already started as the economic indicators are all heading the wrong way, and the negotiations are where any donk could have predicted before the referendum - slow.
Quite why May and her numpties thought they'd activate article 50 and this set the clock running, without having done their due diligence on all potential outcomes and having a plan in place to cover all of them - is beyond me. If something equivalent happened in business it'd be treated as gross incompetence. However, we call know why she rushed into it, as she was being pushed by the rabid Brexiteers, who want out at any cost, sod the consequences, remember the war etc etc. Well more fool her, she's primarily the leader of the Govt ffs not some populist flop flopping vote chaser, and as such she should have put this countries best interest first, and if that meant telling the baying hoards that A50 wouldn't be triggered until we had all of our ducks in a row, then so be it.
Now they're looking round trying to decide who's going to carry the can when the inevitable happens, it's like a pack of lemmings racing to the cliff top.
abelard
Player Valuation: £35m
Brexiteers are not being honest about negotiations because they are panicking
https://www.newstatesman.com/politi...ng-honest-about-negotiations-because-they-are
In trying to communicate the hugely complicated process of negotiation involved in Brexit, it is unsurprising that commentators and politicians have resorted to simple language and concepts with which most people are familiar.
A good deal. A bad deal. A divorce bill. Walking away from the table. No deal.
But talking in this way about the most complicated political process in which this country has been engaged since the Second World War can be seriously misleading.
For a start, this is not a negotiation between equals. We are the ones saying we want to leave the EU, but nonetheless wanting access to its market, the ability to ignore a new customs border of our own creation in Northern Ireland, and (at the moment) even wanting to pull out mid-stream of various joint projects and spending commitments. Later, we will also be asking to stay involved in key EU agencies such as the Air Safety Agency, the Medicines Agency, Europol and others, and probably expect continued co-operation in research and security.
Nor is this a negotiation from which you can walk away without a deal. Unless we change our minds about Brexit itself and decide to stay in the EU, then, unlike most negotiations, “no deal” doesn’t retain the status quo. “No deal” results in a sudden and complete exclusion from a legal framework which is vital for our nation’s economy and for people’s lives in hundreds of practical ways.
The idea that, in order to strengthen its position in the negotiations, Britain must show that it is prepared to walk away without a deal, is equivalent to pointing a gun to your own head and saying: “Give me what I want or I’ll shoot myself!”
Another peculiarity is that the government is spending more time negotiating with itself than with the EU. The deep divisions in what is anyway a minority government paralyse it every step of the way. No one can forget that David Davis turned up at the first negotiation meeting without a single position paper – the EU had already published theirs. We still don’t know, a year and a half after the referendum, what the government wants to try to secure on many key issues.
This partly reflects the fact that no Brexit deal can actually deliver the promises made by the Leave campaign – and Brexiteer ministers don’t want to admit that. Indeed, they don’t even want to publish the impact assessments the government has made on the consequences of Brexit, which must be dire.
It is also because the government cannot find consensus on some of the unpalatable choices facing Britain, such as keeping easy access to the single market but then having to follow most of its rules, or having a more distant relationship, at even higher economic cost.
Finally, it is because some Brexiteer ministers actually want to keep some issues open. They won’t let Theresa May or David Davis reach a compromise.
This is especially true for the current stand-off about the so-called “divorce bill” (which is in fact a calculation to be made of the UK’s share of joint projects that we already agreed to undertake). Despite Theresa May saying in her Florence speech, that “the UK will honour commitments we have made during the period of our membership”, the right-wing Brexiteers won’t let her settle. They want to turn this into a full-blown row with the EU, and keep it going as long as possible.
The reason is that they are in a panic. Opinion polls are showing that the public has not rallied, as expected, behind Brexit. If anything, it is edging against Brexit as the chaos, confusion and economic damage of the Tory Brexitshambles becomes more apparent.
To stop this going further the Brexiteers calculate that they can use this issue to deflect criticism and inflame public opinion against the EU. They rely upon the easy caricature of a grasping EU trying to blackmail Britain into paying an unwarranted exit fee. They hope the complexity of the issue will deter people from looking beyond the headlines. The tried and tested tactic of Blaming Brussels will, they hope, lessen calls for a rethink on Brexit itself.
This in turn holds up the negotiations on other issues. Despite a lot of bluster beforehand, Davis agreed to the sequencing of settling the “divorce” issues before moving on to the much more complicated issues of the future trading relationship.
But the long delay in reaching these issues increases the chances of a botched negotiation, of more confusion, chaos and cost. Far from saving money (and the proceeds going to the NHS), Brexit is turning out to be an economically costly exercise.
Leave voters are entitled to feel swindled.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politi...ng-honest-about-negotiations-because-they-are
In trying to communicate the hugely complicated process of negotiation involved in Brexit, it is unsurprising that commentators and politicians have resorted to simple language and concepts with which most people are familiar.
A good deal. A bad deal. A divorce bill. Walking away from the table. No deal.
But talking in this way about the most complicated political process in which this country has been engaged since the Second World War can be seriously misleading.
For a start, this is not a negotiation between equals. We are the ones saying we want to leave the EU, but nonetheless wanting access to its market, the ability to ignore a new customs border of our own creation in Northern Ireland, and (at the moment) even wanting to pull out mid-stream of various joint projects and spending commitments. Later, we will also be asking to stay involved in key EU agencies such as the Air Safety Agency, the Medicines Agency, Europol and others, and probably expect continued co-operation in research and security.
Nor is this a negotiation from which you can walk away without a deal. Unless we change our minds about Brexit itself and decide to stay in the EU, then, unlike most negotiations, “no deal” doesn’t retain the status quo. “No deal” results in a sudden and complete exclusion from a legal framework which is vital for our nation’s economy and for people’s lives in hundreds of practical ways.
The idea that, in order to strengthen its position in the negotiations, Britain must show that it is prepared to walk away without a deal, is equivalent to pointing a gun to your own head and saying: “Give me what I want or I’ll shoot myself!”
Another peculiarity is that the government is spending more time negotiating with itself than with the EU. The deep divisions in what is anyway a minority government paralyse it every step of the way. No one can forget that David Davis turned up at the first negotiation meeting without a single position paper – the EU had already published theirs. We still don’t know, a year and a half after the referendum, what the government wants to try to secure on many key issues.
This partly reflects the fact that no Brexit deal can actually deliver the promises made by the Leave campaign – and Brexiteer ministers don’t want to admit that. Indeed, they don’t even want to publish the impact assessments the government has made on the consequences of Brexit, which must be dire.
It is also because the government cannot find consensus on some of the unpalatable choices facing Britain, such as keeping easy access to the single market but then having to follow most of its rules, or having a more distant relationship, at even higher economic cost.
Finally, it is because some Brexiteer ministers actually want to keep some issues open. They won’t let Theresa May or David Davis reach a compromise.
This is especially true for the current stand-off about the so-called “divorce bill” (which is in fact a calculation to be made of the UK’s share of joint projects that we already agreed to undertake). Despite Theresa May saying in her Florence speech, that “the UK will honour commitments we have made during the period of our membership”, the right-wing Brexiteers won’t let her settle. They want to turn this into a full-blown row with the EU, and keep it going as long as possible.
The reason is that they are in a panic. Opinion polls are showing that the public has not rallied, as expected, behind Brexit. If anything, it is edging against Brexit as the chaos, confusion and economic damage of the Tory Brexitshambles becomes more apparent.
To stop this going further the Brexiteers calculate that they can use this issue to deflect criticism and inflame public opinion against the EU. They rely upon the easy caricature of a grasping EU trying to blackmail Britain into paying an unwarranted exit fee. They hope the complexity of the issue will deter people from looking beyond the headlines. The tried and tested tactic of Blaming Brussels will, they hope, lessen calls for a rethink on Brexit itself.
This in turn holds up the negotiations on other issues. Despite a lot of bluster beforehand, Davis agreed to the sequencing of settling the “divorce” issues before moving on to the much more complicated issues of the future trading relationship.
But the long delay in reaching these issues increases the chances of a botched negotiation, of more confusion, chaos and cost. Far from saving money (and the proceeds going to the NHS), Brexit is turning out to be an economically costly exercise.
Leave voters are entitled to feel swindled.
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
They got it wrong on Brexit and apologised........and by the way senior managers in a boardroom do not pluck numbers from their arses, they review the very detailed work performed by many professionals performed over the previous year....
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
What !!!, an economist got something wrong.......maybe this means that other economists get things wrong........
roydo
in memoriam - 1965-2024
Lets face it, Economists see something happen in reality, then prove it in a theory.
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
Well tbf, she didn’t activate article 50 until 9 months after the vote. Now obviously those lazy barstewards in the civil service went on leave and couldn’t be arsed working out what it meant, or, come to think of it, perhaps they did and that proved to be the trigger. But I’m sure you know better......
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
Indeed, then promote themselves in a consultancy role. As I said earlier, if they were really any good at forecasts they would all be Zillionaires.......
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
What a load of pure crap.......if May were to walk away from talks and call another election she would walk it......
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
bobbydigital
Player Valuation: £1.5m
Wasting too much time looking backwards Pete. Not impressed.
Do you drive your car with the windscreen blacked out relying on somebody in the backseat telling you what you have hit to figure out where you are going?
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
You haven’t got a clue have you......
joey_macmo
Player Valuation: £35m
The Irony with your tone... What is it you told me i needed to do..... Oh yeah!! Calm down and get a life wasn't it? Maybe you need to relax watch a movie and have a beer i think it was you said.
Haha!! Great comeback to his point haha!!
Foot Long Hot Dog
Player Valuation: A packet of pork scratchings
That report was lead by one.....Minford, and used his model.
The report was completely trashed by the LSE, as his model is from the 70's and in '97 predicted that the national minimum wage would result in millions more on the dole........it's a complete crock of crap Pete.
- Status